ALERT: Look for response to dubia in June

To those who are still hoping against hope that Francis will answer the now-famous dubia, I am able to state with complete confidence:

Look for a response from Francis in June.

No, not six months from now, but rather six months ago – in June of 2016.

You see, on May 25, 2016, the Italian Catholic media outlet, La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, published a bombshell interview with Cardinal Carlo Caffara wherein he launched what was by far the most noteworthy warning shot ever fired in the direction of Francis and Amoris Laetitia to that date.

In the interview, Cardinal Caffara, one of the four cardinal-authors of the now-infamous dubia, flatly rejected the idea that “there is room for access to the sacraments for the remarried divorced,” stating rather bluntly:

He who lives a state of life which objectively contradicts the sacrament of the Eucharist, cannot receive the sacrament.

What’s more, he went directly after the text of Amoris Laetitia (and to no small extent, its author as well), saying, “Marital fidelity is not an ‘ideal’ to be achieved” – a concept put forth in the exhortation more than a dozen times.

He then went on to offer what can only be understood as a public rebuke of Francis, albeit in the manner of one proficient in Romanitas:

Chapter 8 is, objectively, unclear. How else to explain the ‘conflict of interpretations’ ignited even among bishops? When that happens, you should check whether there are other Magisterial texts that are more clear, keeping in mind this principle: in matters of doctrine, of faith and morals, the Magisterium cannot contradict itself. One must not confuse contradiction with development.

This criticism is far more pointed and personal than it may initially appear.

On April 16, 2016, roughly one week after Amoris Laetitia was officially released, a journalist on the return flight to Rome from Lesbos asked Francis whether or not there has been any change in the discipline concerning reception of the sacraments by the divorced and remarried.

He responded:

I could say yes, period. But that would be too brief a response. I recommend that all of you read the presentation made by Cardinal Schönborn, a great theologian … Your question will find its answer in that presentation.

On May 19, just days prior to the Cardinal Caffara interview, it was reported on the website of the Latin American Bishop’s Conference (CELAM) that Francis had similarly informed a delegation of their cardinals and bishops that Cardinal Schönborn’s presentation is “the best guide for understanding” Amoris Laetitia – Chapter 8.

So, what exactly transpired during this presentation?

A reporter asked Cardinal Schönborn whether or not Familiaris Consortio – paragraph 84 is still valid in light of Amoris Laetitia.

For clarity, recall that Familiaris Consortio 84 states in part:

The Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. (FC 84)

As for the on-going validity of this practice which is based upon Sacred Scripture in light of Amoris Laetitia, Cardinal Schönborn said (as reported in the Jesuit publication, America Magazine):

The Austrian cardinal describes Francis’ opening as “a classic case” of “the organic development of doctrine.” He explained that here “there is not a change [of doctrine],” but there is “the organic development of doctrine,” along the lines that John Henry Newman had envisaged. He recalled that just as John Paul II had “developed doctrine” in “Familiaris Consortio,” so, too, Francis has done the same in “Amoris Laetitia.”

With this in mind, the explosiveness of Cardinal Caffara’s take down is far more obvious:

“…you should check whether there are other Magisterial texts that are more clear, [an obvious reference to Familiaris Consortio] keeping in mind this principle: in matters of doctrine, of faith and morals, the Magisterium cannot contradict itself. One must not confuse contradiction with development.”

There can be no doubt whatsoever that this bombshell, wherein Cardinal Caffara leveled a clearly discernible charge against both Schönborn and Francis (that of contradicting doctrine) shook the very walls of the Vatican.

So, how did Francis respond?

He employed one of his go-to weapons; insults carefully woven into a Santa Marta homily.

Before we get to that, however, let us recall that the question posed to Cardinal Schönborn (as noted above) is essentially the first one posed in the dubia:

Dubium #1: It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?

And now for the answer:

On June 9, 2016, less than two weeks after the Caffara interview was detonated, Francis gave what by now is an all-too-familiar response (as reported by Vatican Radio):

Pope Francis warned on Thursday against an excessive rigidity, saying those within the Church who tell us “it’s this or nothing” are heretics and not Catholics.

In his homily the Pope reflected on the harm caused by Churchmen who do the opposite of what they preach and urged them to free themselves from a rigid idealism that prevents reconciliation between each other.

For those with ears to hear, this is an insult leveled directly at the “Caffaras” in the Church, and a call for them to embrace the brilliance of the “Schönborns,” who, after all, are “great theologians.”

Francis continued:

This (is the) healthy realism of the Catholic Church: the Church never teaches us ‘or this or that.’ That is not Catholic. The Church says to us: ‘this and that’ … It is not Catholic (to say) ‘or this or nothing:’ This is not Catholic, this is heretical.

Not content to berate those who, like Cardinal Caffara, recognize the “yes/no” nature of certain moral precepts, Francis then took aim at Jesus Christ Himself by distorting His teaching:

Jesus always knows how to accompany us, he gives us the ideal, he accompanies us towards the ideal, He frees us from the chains of the laws’ rigidity and tells us: ‘But do that up to the point that you are capable.’ And he understands us very well. He is our Lord and this is what he teaches us.”

Recalling Cardinal Caffara’s unequivocal denunciation of claims made in Amoris Laetitia, (e.g., “Marital fidelity is not an ‘ideal’ to be achieved”), this reference to an “ideal” that Jesus supposedly gives us is quite obviously deliberate.

Francis concluded his rant-disguised-as-a-sermon:

And allow me to use this word that seems a bit strange: it’s the tiny sanctity of negotiations. ‘So, I can’t do everything but I want to do everything, therefore I reach an agreement with you, at least we don’t trade insults, we don’t wage a war and we can all live in peace.’ Jesus is a great person! He frees us from all our miseries and also from that idealism which is not Catholic.

So there you have it folks…

While this is far from Francis’ only answer to the dubia, it is perhaps rightly considered among his first, and it may be summed up as follows:

The idea that “he who is not with me is against me” is far too rigid. So too is the notion of letting one’s “speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.” Likewise is it merely idealism to believe that “Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another committeth adultery against her.”

As such, no more are we to understand the Divine Law in such black-and-white terms as “this or that;” rather, we are invited to “negotiate” with the law giver, because, after all, he’s such “a great person.”

And here you thought He was Emmanuel, God with us, King of kings, and Lord of lords.

Related Posts

Latest Comments

CatherineJanuary 3, 2017

In all honesty, it doesn’t matter who partakes in the eating of the Novus Ordo cookie since the liturgy is a sacrilege and an abomination and the priests installed in Paul VI new rite are not validly ordained. Christ is not Really Present so it is merely the eating of a piece of bread. That is what the majority of those who attend believe from what has been gathered in many different polls. Who can fault the poor, deceived Catholic who hasn’t been taught the true faith and simply wants to fully participate in the “club” or social/political organization that is what the institutional Church actually became?

In all honesty, it does matter…
——-
Lord, Father all-powerful, and ever-living God, I thank Thee, for even though I am a sinner, Thy unprofitable servant, not because of my worth, but in the kindness of Thy mercy, Thou hast fed me with the precious Body and Blood of Thy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. I pray that this holy communion may not bring me condemnation and punishment but forgiveness and salvation. May it be a helmet of faith and a shield of good will. May it purify me from evil ways and put an end to my evil passions. May it bring me charity and patience, humility and obedience, and growth in power to do good. May it be my strong defense against all my enemies, visible and invisible, and the perfect calming of all my evil impulses, bodily and spiritual. May it unite me more closely to Thee, the one true God and lead me safely through death to everlasting happiness with Thee. And I pray that Thou willest lead me, a sinner to the banquet where Thou with Thy Son and Holy Spirit, art true and perfect light, total fulfillment, everlasting joy, gladness without end, and perfect happiness to Thy saints. Grant this through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Ever mindful: St. Thomas Aquinas has given us a beautiful prayer to thank God after Holy Mass. Thank you for sharing it. Of course he believed the truth, that he was partaking of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ who became Present when a validly ordained priest in a valid rite consecrated the bread and wine. But if there is not a validly ordained priest nor a valid consecration of the bread and wine, both remain nothing more than bread and wine. Therefore, how can it be a sacrilege for anyone to eat bread and drink wine? In this prayer, even St. Thomas Aquinas, believing he was receiving Christ in the Eucharist, still asked that he not be condemned and punished for receiving Christ unworthily, and yet those who are not receiving Christ or believe they are but have neither confessed a mortal sin nor have any intention of amending their life to avoid keeping mortally sinning, are being told that IT DOESN’T MATTER.

I would opine that it is our Catholic duty to always keep learning our Faith. I do not feel bad for the lazy Catholic…..the lazy Catholic condemns him/her self. Not knowing the Faith and therefore living sinfully, unless you are truly mentally deficient, will be no excuse at your judgement. Any person who continues to attend the protestant novus ordo church, assuming that they are of age and of sound mind, condemns themselves.

To back up what I said I’ll give you the words (not verbatim) of the great St. John Vianney , the Cure d’ars (and the patron Saint of parish priests): Most Catholics who go to hell go there because they never learned their Faith.

I read all of your posts, but oftentimes Im not quite sure what your intended message is. This post here for instance…are you agreeing with what I said or are you subtlety disagreeing with me? I truly dont know.

Ever mindful–If the Holy Eucharist is the Real Presence of Our Lord, why do the communicants stand to receive the Sacred Host from unconsecrated hands (Eucharistic Ministers) in their own hand? No wonder so many Catholics no longer believe! This is the true condemnation. I appreciate your heartfelt comments, but perhaps it is time to look more deeply into what has become a Protestantized liturgy.

Rich, pray tell, what do all those Catholics out there who have no SSPX parish to go to because they live too far away? What do Catholics do when they need the sacraments but the only thing available is a Novus Ordo parish with a Novus Ordo pastor and his Novus Ordo diocesan bishop? Do you recommend that Catholics in such dire situations simply not go to Mass at all?

The Third Commandment says that you must keep the Sabbath Holy. It is the Church that says, the best way to do that is to go to Mass. If the Church doesn’t provide you with a Catholic Mass to go to, then it’s the Church’s fault you can’t go and not yours.

Once a year you will be able to travel to a Catholic Mass and receive Holy Communion. The rest of the time, you could read the Sunday Mass readings from your Missal and say an extra Rosary. That is the Catholic solution to a dire situation.

I say today what any Catholic would have said back in the 50’s. My words seem harsh only because we have become so used to the immoral garbage that is our current world. I wouldnt enter into a novus ordo “building” if you paid me to. Been there and done that….never again.

Al, if one believes the NO to be a protestant innovation and thus displeasing worship to God, then it would be a sin to participate. I do sympathize greatly with faithful Catholics who are geographically separated from the true Mass. There are many ways to sanctify Sunday and the Holy Days besides mass attendance.

CortezJanuary 5, 2017

Still super glad. Just wondering what you make of the cloistered nuns of the Conceptionist Convent in Quito, Ecuador where Our Lady of Good Success continues to be the head abbess. Our Lady of Good Success appeared in tbe 1600s to spoke specifically of this crisis, by the way, “IN the Church”. That’s the Church I belong to, the one with the crisis going on in it. Anyway, Our Lady said, at that time, that there would ALWAYS be a living saint in that convent until the end of time. Right now those nuns only have access to the N.O.Mass. So then, how does a living saint condemn herself by attending this? Also, all the other holy nuns who live there and are being punished by having no Latin Mass available to them, with all the other stipulations you require are also condemning themselves? It is possible in these times to attend a NO Mass and not be condemned. Be careful what you preach. Your words are bearing some rotten fruits. Definitely a turn off to your sede cause. A bit too “rigid”.

Tom AJanuary 6, 2017

Cortez, the NO is the bearer of rotten fruit. I have no idea what is going on in that convent in Ecuador anymore than you do. But reason must lead a soul to conclude that a protestant worship service is not pleasing to God. If there is a saint in that convent it will be in spite of the Novus Ordo not because of it.

richJanuary 6, 2017

Cortez

Through bitter personal experience, I bear fruit that is harsh….but it is not rotten though. The NO protestant faith is of the devil, as all false faiths are. False faiths are incapable of doing any good. If the current “me” could go back in time and speak to the “me” of 2012, the “me” of 2012 would have thought the current “me” was insane.The thing is, the 2012 “me” hadnt lived through the HELL that the novus ordo FSSP caused me since 2012. I have felt the wrath of the satanic novus ordo first hand….and I am now wise. The vatican 2 (NO) religion is one that was founded to spit on God, just like any other false faith. Our Catholic Church is one of TRUTHS….there are no ambiguities. Embrace that Catholic Faith of the ages, that existed prior to the satanic council of the early 60’s, and fully RENOUNCE, and stop making excuses for, the new springtime.

mpoulinJanuary 3, 2017

Proverbs 9:7 -10 He who corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse, and he who reproves a wicked man incurs injury. Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will still be wiser; teach a righteous man and he will increase in learning. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.

Fooling himself, fooling the author, fooling the reader
–
Thanks to Mr. V for his commentary on the dubia controversy.
–
In reviewing the comments to Mr. V’s prior dubia post I noted that no one criticized me for questioning in a comment whether the dubia effort should be taken seriously if the teaching that the Cardinals were seeking to vindicate was that of Pope John Paul II. My assumption was that some would think that although Pope John Paul II may have had novel views on ecumenism and ecclesiology, that he was strong on marriage and human sexuality. We should all know how to reply to such a distinction – that it doesn’t matter if a “catholic” adheres to 95% of the faith – to be a catholic one has to adhere to 100% of the faith. So if Pope John Paul II was not reliable on ecumenism and ecclesiology, we shouldn’t be listening to his views on marriage either.
–
Nonetheless, I assumed that there would be someone out there who thought Pope John Paul II had orthodox views on marriage. Pope John Paul II certainly seemed to consider himself a champion of marriage, and his admirers even to the recent past consider him a champion of marriage and the family. After all, it is teachings in the dubia that the Cardinals are seeking to uphold.
–
For instance. the following passage from JP II’s Gratissimam Sane appeared in a Rorate Caeli blog piece last August:
–
” A civilization inspired by a consumerist, anti-birth mentality is not and cannot ever be a civilization of love. If the family is so important for the civilization of love, it is because of the particular closeness and intensity of the bonds which come to be between persons and generations within the family. However, the family remains vulnerable and can easily fall prey to dangers which weaken it or actually destroy its unity and stability. As a result of these dangers families cease to be witnesses of the civilization of love and can even become a negation of it, a kind of counter-sign. A broken family can, for its part, consolidate a specific form of ‘anti-civilization,’ destroying love in its various expressions, with inevitable consequences for the whole of life in society.
. . .
In particular, responsible fatherhood and motherhood directly concern the moment in which a man and a woman, uniting themselves ‘in one flesh,’ can become parents. This is a moment of special value both for their interpersonal relationship and for their service to life: they can become parents—father and mother— by communicating life to a new human being. The two dimensions of conjugal union, the unitive and the procreative, cannot be artificially separated without damaging the deepest truth of the conjugal act itself.”
–http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/08/john-paul-iis-letter-to.html
–
The author of the piece in Rorate Caeli viewed these passages from Grattisimam Sane as reliable when he commented at the beginning of the piece as follows:
–
“How quickly we forget… In an age of ephemeral communications and ever-multiplying pronouncements, even the finest papal documents can get buried in the sands of oblivion. I am as well aware as the next traditionalist of the many problematic elements in John Paul II’s pontificate—but, to be perfectly honest, as time goes on, I find he is looking better and better. It’s amazing what a contrasting backdrop will do for a man’s reputation. As the Polish pope’s overpowering personality and whimsical decisions recede into the background, certain of his writings acquire greater and greater relevance (one might even dare to use the word “prophetic”) for our contemporary situation, serving as tall guideposts for the orthodox and a fearful scaffolding for dissenters.
–
One such nearly-forgotten but extremely rich and rewarding document is the “Letter to Families” of 1994, also known by its official Latin title Gratissimam Sane.”
–
But was Gratissimam Sane “rich and rewarding” or was it poison? Are there dangerous novelties hidden in the document, or are they right there up front, out-in-the-open and boldly proclaimed?
–
For instance reread the paragraphs from GS reproduced above. Notice how much importance is placed on the “particular closeness and intensity of bonds” that arise between spouses and that having children “is a moment of special value both for their [the spouses’] interpersonal relationship and their service to life”.
–
It is right there and the professor author of the Rorate Caeli piece who teaches on these subjects missed it! Pope John Paul II inverts and perverts the teaching of the Church on the ends of marriage! He makes it clear that he inverts the traditional ordering when he writes: “The two dimensions of conjugal union, the unitive and the procreative, cannot be artificially separated without damaging the deepest truth of the conjugal act itself.” Pope John Paul II criticizes other Catholics for seeking to separate the ends of marriage, but he without hesitation re-orders the traditional ends of marriage placing the unitive aspect first and writing that the procreative aspect of marriage can provide a moment of special value to the unitive aspect of marriage!

More important even than what you have pointed out is the constant reference to “a civilization of love” which began to mean a faith with man at the centre. This began at least 100 years ago with the rise of modernism, but John Paul II flooded the Church with this personalism message – it’s all about “relationship” – when it’s really all about our worship of GOD, and doing, like good children, what HE tells us to do.

Unfortunately John Paul II was steeped in modernist thought from university onward. It’s in all of his writings, and Benedict XVI carried on when JPII died.

Now we have the full poison fruit: Francis making the Catholic Church just one among many sects who “love Jesus” and keep Him close to their “hearts” but who do not obey.

Bravo Saint Cyprian!
I am happy to see that I have a colleague in this battle against the errors pertaining to marriage and its purpose as authored by our Lord. Karol Wojtyla knew very well the teachings on the hierarchial purposes of marriage but he put the emphasis on the dignity of man as his defense as to why this hierarchy should be respected and he supported the confusion as to who exactly were these new souls, conceived through marriage, were to glorify. One doesn’t get the impression from his writings that procreation was for God’s glory and but that it was rather to safeguard man’s dignity in some mysterious way that we were supposed to guess on.

Thank-you for pointing out the Tradition-in-Action piece. Here are the important in-depth points made by the author regarding the issues I touched upon:
–
“Now then, JPII was very far from being a master of sound morality. Although he sometimes repeated the traditional teaching of the Church, habitually his moral approach was a tributary of the Personalism of Max Scheler, which is opposed to the traditional philosophy of the Church. His theology of the body is clearly immoral; eulogies of nudism are not rare in his works, and in the World Youth Days he implicitly promoted free love among youth. If the Cardinals wanted to defend the perennial morals of the Church, why did they base themselves on this contaminated source?

The Cardinals’ failure to quote the immense ensemble of traditional documents of the Church on marriage and Communion is an omission fostering the idea that the Conciliar Church – to which the four Cardinals belong – is different from the Magisterium prior to Vatican II. One could even say that the Cardinals themselves are in practical schism regarding the past of the Church. However, this is the very accusation made by Bishop Schneider and, more recently, Card. Brandmuller, against those who do not accept the teachings of John Paul II. Why this contradictory position?”
–
Note the new point made by Guimarães in the second paragraph about the failure to rely on the pre VII teachings of the Church – “One could even say that the Cardinals themselves are in practical schism regarding the past of the Church.”
–
If anyone wondered what I meant by “fooling himself, fooling the author. . .” comment this illustrates it perfectly. By ignoring the clear contradictions between the teachings of VII and the perennial teachings of the Church (e.g., regarding the proper ordering of the ends of marriage), the Cardinals have placed themselves in a position where they look foolish – they are just one group of modernists defending another modernist (JPII) from attacks by a more radical group of modernists.
–
In view of this apparent reality, who is the greater danger to the faithful, those like Pope Francis who are clearly apostate radicals, or those like the Cardinals who are defending in JP II a more clever and subtler adulterer of the faith?

Regarding this issue, Mr. V wrote a post here:
–https://akacatholic.com/marriage-upside-down/#comments
–
In this post he discusses how the new Code of Canon Law of 1983 – promulgated during Pope John Paul II’s papacy – contradicted the traditional teaching on the ends of marriage contained in the Code of Canon Law of 1917.

In researching this topic I learned that this issue – on the proper order of the ends of marriage – itself had been the subject of a dubium in 1944. I found a document that discusses the dubium, and the author Rev. Francis J. Connell had this to say:
–
“With a view to settling this question, the members of the Con-
gregation of the Holy Office, assembled in plenary session, on March 29, 1944, discussed this dubium: ‘Can the opinion of certain writers be admitted who either deny that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and rearing of offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinate to the primary end, but are equally principal and independent?’ The answer was in the negative, and on the following day Pope Pius XII approved this decision and commanded that it be made a matter of public law.”
–
In discussing how the decision of the Holy Office was rendered, Father Connell had this to say:
–
“The direct and absolute form in which this decision was rendered
is worthy of note. Not infrequently the Holy Office, in condemning
a doctrine, employs the formula: ‘Tuto doceri non potest’ or an
equivalent phrase. A decision expressed in this form is based on the state of the question actually prevailing, in view of the argu-
ments that have been presented up to that time; consequently, it
does not necessarily exclude the possibility that subsequent findings
may reveal new arguments or a new aspect of the problem which
will permit the doctrine that is now condemned to be held, at least
as probable. But in the present instance the Holy Office did not
employ this qualified form of condemnation, but rather couched its rejection of the doctrine under consideration in a manner that admits of no possibility of any future investigations that will alter the present Catholic doctrine on the matter. As far as the Holy Office is concerned, the question is settled definitely and conclusively. The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the rearing of children; no other end is of equal importance with this or of greater importance, nor are the other ends independent of this primary end of the conjugal union.”
–
The rest of the document by Father Connell is instructive, in that it describes the thinking of those who were contradicting the traditional Catholic teaching on the ends of marriage:
–http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ctsa/article/viewFile/2244/1842
–
Back to my point. How seriously should we take the present dubia controversy, when the Cardinal authors are primarily concerned with vindicating the teachings of Pope John Paul II, when Pope John Paul II himself contradicted the teaching of the Church on marriage, teachings that were themselves subject of a dubium?

The definitive response from The Holy Office is an example of “the ordinary magisterial” and as the Pope signed off too, this comes under infallibility.

That’s why Francis is not going to answer. There is someone deep in a dark corner of a Vatican library who has the job of “looking up stuff” for Francis – Francis knows all about the proper procedure for dubia, the various types of answer, and he also knows that this is part of the ordinary magisterium. He will never answer.

Your last paragraph is extremely important but who will answer your question when JPII has become a saint of the Modernist church with its absolute approval of not only his heresies, but the sacrileges and blaspheme’s against Our Lord, Jesus Christ, which he committed every time he prayed to and worshipped a false god.

St. Cyprian,
Your comments are well researched and perfectly accurate. They are similar to Anastasia’s past comments and I echo her sentiments:
“I, too, am happy to see that (she has) a colleague in this battle against the errors pertaining to marriage and its purpose as authored by our Lord.” (to use her above quote).
This “turning of the ends of marriage upside down” as Mr. V. previously postedhttps://akacatholic.com/marriage-upside-down/#comments
(as you pointed out above) has reeked so much havoc in the Church and in the families of many devout Catholics trying to live holy lives, but subtly deceived by popes they (we) thought were trust-worthy.
I have learned much from Mr. V’s posts and also from Anastasia’s comments on this subject. Keep up your writings on here, St. Cyprian. Their truth is a powerful
antidote to the poison of our current times. Thank you.

I echo that. Anastasia has for some years been a persevering warrior for Christ on the matter of the nature and purpose of marriage – natural and sacramental. The corruption of marriage was essential to achieving general apostasy. The domestic church of the family based on sacramentsl marriage is tied to the relationship of Christ to His Holy Church. Satan has taken over the temporal Church on many fronts but the systematic corruption of marriage, both natural and sacramental has devastated the vineyard. True marriages bring forth fruit, even if the husband and wife are physically unable to procreate. Marital families are the seedbed of religious and priestly vocations and the parish, which make up the Church.

I think what’s really at the root of this confusion on the primary purpose of marriage is a letter that Pope Pius IX wrote back in 1853 responding to a priest that was asking him if it was ok for couples to have sex only at times when they knew pregnancy wasn’t possible in an effort to avoid having children and Pope Pius IX answered in the affirmative.

Here’s something, just scroll down to the HISTORY headline. There’s other links also but, surprise, surprise it’s mostly the neokats using it to promote the contraceptive mentality of so-called Natural Family Planning, which of course the Church teaches it’s the mentality of family planning that was always a serious sin regardless of whether we stick the word Natural in front of it or not, at least, till Pope Pius IX came along and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this is also the same pope that first became obssessed with another newly discovered “dogma” of his liking ;Invincible Ignorance, another term that neokats have now successfully used to make the primary dogma of the Church “EENS” into a “meaningless formula” (from Pope Pius XII). So no surprise here that Pope Pius IX was always known as a liberal pope but the rumors that he was a freemason also worth looking into. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_family_planning

AnastasiaJanuary 5, 2017

Dear Johnjobilbee,

This question that you quote is where the groundwork for the questions were being laid at that time for seeking aproval on contraception.This question pertains to asking whether it is a sin to have conjugal intercourse on days where I now know, from modern science, that I am most likely not to conceive. The answer is no it is not a sin as long as you are not using the NFP mentality that plans to exclusively have recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children. The way this question was worded, in my opinion was to mislead people into thinking that they were asking if exclusively taking advantage of the infertile period in order to avoid having children was a sin regardless of whether I did this to avoid having children or not. They were very careful not to word it in that way because, again in my opinion, back then they were not willing or ready to come out front with their contraceptive agenda.

Unless I misunderstand, I think the question IS about using the NFP mentality, here it is: “Certain married couples, relying on the opinion of learned physicians, are convinced that there are several days each month in which conception cannot occur. Are those who do not use the marriage right EXCEPT on such days to be disturbed, especially if they have legitimate reasons for abstaining from the conjugal act?

johnjobilbeeJanuary 5, 2017

And the Sacred Penitentiary under Pope Pius IX replied: “Those spoken of in the request ARE NOT to be disturbed, providing that they do nothing to impede conception.” Actually, to me this answer sounds like it contadicts itself not much unlike the doublespeak we have been hearing from the Popes the last 50 years.

AnastasiaJanuary 5, 2017

Again I think I have read this same question somewhere before which I beleive was not published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis which is the official arm of Rome that answers an important question that they wish to be sent out to the public at large. This question that you quote from a priest’s private letter to the Pope Pius IX and its answer that you quote was not completly straight forward and it was very contradictory in its answer as in yes you can but no you can’t if I remember correctly the answer that was given.